for a debate between the governor can't challenger bill maloney. witnesses say is the third debate between scott brown and elizabeth warren. that is wednesday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: good morning and welcome to washington journal on this october 9. mitt romney travel to ottawa. -- iowa. and the spouses are making their pitches to voters.

we would like to hear from you this morning on whether political spouses affect. affect. --re are the numbers to call i you can also find us online. send us a tweet or you can weigh in on facebook. or email us. we would like to hear from you this morning on whether political spouses affect your vote in what they say, their personal stories, their political backgrounds, professional background, whether they make a difference to you. here's a story in the new york times --

michelle obama is headed to loudoun, virginia. this looks at the associated press report. expected late tuesday afternoon at loudoun county fairgrounds in virginia for a campaign rally focusing in part on encouraging voters to register in advance of the state's monday deadline.

"politico" has this -- those statements came in a recent interview that michelle obama dead on abc which aired last night. let's listen. [video clip] >> i am his biggest supporter. are you also brutally honest? >> absolutely. >> if you think something has not gone right -- >> if i think it will help him but i also temper my remarks. sometimes in a job like this, the last thing the president of the united states needs when he walks in the door is someone who is drilling him about the decisions and choices that he has made. so there are definitely times when i may still something but i will hold back because i will know that he will either get to

it on his own or it's just not time. host: that was last night on abc. looking at what ann romney is up to, she plans to post good morning america tomorrow morning. she is filling in. the show is also in talks to get michelle obama on the air. ann romney is in the battleground states of virginia. she greeted cancer survivors and campaign volunteers yesterday in chester. peter in sarasota, florida, on our independent line. we are talking about whether political spouses affect your vote. caller: absolutely not. and i am an independent for u.s. senate in florida. and i'me-in candidate, single with a mensa iq, and i'm the owner of two companies.

geraldine ferraro was the best candidate running back years ago. vote for pete. host: let's go to our next call in hindsville, alabama, on our democrat line. good morning. no, they don't affect my vote. they are very intelligent women, but i've already made up my mind. so the spouses don't have anything to do with that. host: do they give more perspective and to who the candidates are? radio station in washington, wtop, says -- do you feel the spouses can give more of a human side to the person?

caller: they might try, but most people see what the. candidates the. it's kind of hard for them to change the way people perceive the spouse. -- they might try, but most people see what the candidate is about. it has no effect on who i will vote for. host: andy is a democrat in florida. caller: i don't think spouses have anything to do with my vote. i vote for who's going to do the best for the people and the country. in florida, they took money away from the fire department and the police officers and laid off a couple thousand teachers. the that tell me he's going to do for the working people? host: how much you pay attention to the spouses of the candidates? caller: well, i -- it's supposed

to be a free country. i believe anybody can vote for whoever they want to vote. i don't pay attention to that. i pay attention to is going to do the best. i was a rescue worker at the world trade center. had ptsd. if they take away my medicare and social security, i would be dead. host: now republican caller, vinny. caller: i really follow this. one thing i saw was michelle obama gave a speech on c-span in january of 2007 where she said blacks should make whites slaves.

that is in the c-span archives. host: this was 2007? caller: january. she said whites should be slaves and blacks should be slave owners. host: we will check into that. let's move on to rod in florida on our democratic line. caller: hello. i think they do make a little bit of a difference in the appearance of their husband. i would think that barack obama comes from a lower income family and his wife probably histoo, working class people -- and his wife probably did, too.

ann romney has been a stay at home mother and has a lot of people working for her in the home. i think it does make a difference. host: this on twitter -- here's more about the story we mentioned a moment ago from wtop radio in washington --

let's hear ann romney last night on the campaign trail. [video clip] >> there was a story told at the convention i would like to retell. the ability to let you know what kind of a person mitt is and how he cares. by having these women with us today, we know that he cares about women and he cares about making the economy good for women and he cares that these past four years have been the most difficult on women. more women have become unemployed than men in the last four years. you also know that more women have fallen into poverty in the last four years. i know that we need to have women out there understand at thatmitt is a person cares and will work harder than

anyone, that will be there, and he will not fail. host: the question is whether political spouses affect your vote. kathy in fort worth, texas, republican line. caller: good morning. my name is actually jackie. i am a mother. i'm not wealthy or educated. i went to high school. i have three sons and two grandchildren. i think it's wonderful to hear their spouse talk about them. it makes me see a different perspective in their personal lives. so i think it's good. host: what is it in particular that you like hearing from the wives of the candidates? is it their personal stories? is it them talking about their families or their professional experiences? caller: i think it is so important when a white support

her husband and she can say wonderful things about him. you hear more negative from people, generally, then you do [unintelligible] host: let's go to george in mount olive on the independent line. caller: hearing the wives does not affect my vote. they're not going to say anything negative against your husband. any romney on all these television shows, she is laughing and showing all kind of facial expressions, and her eyebrows never move and forehead never wrinkles. she clearly uses botox. -- annie romney. that's phony. she definitely has had work done. her neckband her hands don't match.

host: is it that you don't like plastic surgery or you want to see real emotion on someone's face? caller: exactly. i don't care if someone uses plastic surgery. she is 60 years old or so. .on't try to look 40 be yourself. don't be phony. she clearly has had botox. her face does not move. she's laughing and throwing her head back on jay leno, and her eyebrows never moved and her forehead does not recall. i just think it's phony. it does not bother me that someone does that as long as they're not trying to sell themselves to me. host: this on twitter --

we will talk more about the first lady's efforts to improve the diet and health of young people. let's turn to how politicians are doing in the polls. a tight race following last week's debate. independents favor romney, in "washington times" -- and the "washington times" looks at areas of interest to registered voters and likely

voters. not only did they look at the debate but they talked-about who would do a better job on a variety of issues. this includes topics like foreign affairs, jobs and the economy, and national security. this is another poll from s zogby and the "washington times ."

you can see these numbers broken down by the pew research center. it shows how romney is pulling even. registered voters, the numbers a little different from likely voters. our question this morning is whether or not political spouses affect your vote. let's go to william at from florida on our democratic line. caller: good morning, everybody. much they don't do that for the ticket, but they do have an effect on the people when they talk.

one thing about -- between michelle obama and mitt romney's wife was she has a sense of entitlement and more or less she was kind of disturbed about when you ask a personal question, but she has to admit they jumped into the race under pressure. it's like her own husband mitt said if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. so she has to be very careful about the things that she says from this time forward, because they are noticed. she kind of had that snarled

look about the race. mitt romney was the angry white man beating his chest. i don't see it that the weather mitt romney won the race or not, i was listening to the message and i did not get any message but i did get a few lies out of mitt romney. host: here's a story in the pittsburgh post-gazette --

let's go to on our republican line at, beth. calling from pennsylvania. host: do political spouses affect your opinion and your vote? caller: no, but i do believe it has a big influence on a lot of other people that do vote. i believe because i think most people really don't look into what has been and has not

been done for the good of the people and the good of the nation. i believe the people go by personality more so, especially with obama being elected. i think he is someone who talks a good talk. his actions don't follow. michelle has gone around to speak on shouted obesity, which --a different thing, but she when she goes around and talked to people, where they came from nothing and she has children, and i think people relate to that. but they are only looking at it as far as the principal part instead of what we really need for this country.

she should go and promote different things for children instead of being the wife of the president. --st: here's this let's look at a campaign video. this is obama for president campaign footage, highlighting the first couple's 20th wedding anniversary, which happened recently. michelle obama talk about her relationship with her husband. [video clip] >> next week we will have been married 20 years. fellows, listen up. what truly made me fall in love with him was his character, his decency, honesty, his compassion, his conviction. host: that was michelle obama. it's a campaign video put out by

obama for president. int's hear from lynn wisconsin on our independent line. caller: good morning at. i am a retired lady living on meager means, but i am an everyday good morning america watcher. when i read this morning that ann romney will be a guest host i made up my mind at in that instant that i will not be watching good morning america this morning. it's one thing for we americans to view the spouses as part of the entity of the new president, toever, to elevate them celebrity status. is dead status for one thing, we in this country overrate celebrity

status to begin with. we make them econs beyond -- icons beyond icons. when you take a candidate's wife or a candidate and put them into the celebrity status of being a guest host on a program, that is a whole new ball game and one i don't care to participate in. if they influence my vote, they do from the perspective they make a person real or unreal. we can develop ideas on that and a date as to what we believe and assimilate, but to elevate them to celebrity status is dead wrong. host: this is what she is referring to, from "the huffington post" --

they're also on social media. the spur slaby and former

governor's wife are on social media. the first lady and the former governor's wife. pinterest is one of those web site. does any of this affect how you feel when it comes time to go to the voting booth? our next caller is in north carolina, samson on our democrat line. are you with us? let's move on to steve in shreveport, louisiana, on our independent line. caller: good morning. host: hold on a second, we are going back to steve. caller: i do have a personal experience in my own family. my father was very wealthy and i

come from a very wealthy family. my mother really did not care about anything. the only people she wanted to hang around with or rich ladies. we had remade in our house and she did not do anything. she did not cook for us or anything. i was very disgusted with my own mother. from what i see of ann romney, the only thing she cares about is looking good and trying to look like she's 35 years old, caring about makeup and clothing. she was a cancer survivor, but she's not the only one. a lot of people are suffering from cancer. when mitt romney was putting his money overseas and exporting jobs overseas, she knew the whole thing.

she should have said you should not do that. and it is against mormon religion to invest in a casino and things like that. it's against their religion. but she knew about it and let mitt romney do it, just to make money. she is -- ann romney is 10 times worse than mitt romney. she's not a regular woman. host: now back to samson. caller: i am really concerned about global human rights and education in africa and ethiopia. -- especially in africa and ethiopia.

debating about human rights and so for at. so forth. host: and this message -- pauline is in virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am glad to get through to you. i met ann romney at a rally and she's one of the most graceful and motherly type of people you could ever meet. i do think spouses make a difference, because they see their husband in a different light than the public. when they get out in the rallies, the media and different people tried to bring them down if they are against them. i think that's a spouse can

give greater insight to what kind of person they're husband or wife is. she is a very graceful person. michelle obama has done well in describing her husband. but i think that they do play a big part, because mothers are just a special person and they can do for children and raise our children and set goals for them in life. i just think we need to pray and ask guides will upon this election -- god's will. host: 1 of our viewers is asking me to remind viewers that ann romney has had ms. do you want to hear her talking about the harder parts of life? caller: yes, i think so.

i just lost my mother last year. we were raised really hard and she was always there for us. i don't care about the money they have. a mother is a mother regardless. they can give god's love that no one else can do. when we have come through struggles in our lives, which i have, it makes you a much stronger person. and it's good to share with others that maybe are having the same struggles and let them see there's always hope. host: ann romney in an interview with wtop radio in washington says she would raise awareness raisems along with breast cancer awareness, if she were first lady. let's hear a clip of her in a campaign video. we heard one from the obama campaign. here's one from the romney

campaign where mrs. vanya talked about her husband and his character. [video clip] >> i think there's one word that would be high on my list to describe him -- trust. when he would bring to the oval office would be intelligence, integrity, and ability to see a problem and solution and make people recognize that he has those leadership qualities that would unite many people. host: that was any romney talking about. about carroll joins us from florida on the democratic line. caller: good rning to all the people out there. thanks for this wonderful opportunity. i am very respectful and very proud of both of the families. for once in our lives we have

two sets of presidential candidates with a wonderful family is displayed that they have concern for their children. as far as does it make a difference with me with their spouses, in a sense, yes, it does. however, i am fortunate. i have been seeking office in the state of florida for 10 years. that's the biggest problem with many people who are out there making comments. if you would only do your civic duty and get involved in seeking any public office in your city, in your county, in your state, you would find that it is very difficult to seek. public seek you have to take a lot of abuse. some of the things people say about candidates, it just is not right. but get yourself involve. i am also responsible for newt

gingrich resigned. i made a statement about food for thought and you can go on the internet. and i talk about open marriage and adultery. that was the number-one hit in the world and i made it very clear that we are not going to allow these candidates to run for public office who have committed adultery. . i also gave a copy to senator mccain when he came into lakeland. i told him to give it to mr. romney, that it would help him. and newt gingrich resigned within a month and a half. i also made the statement and the commissioners in the county never stopped me. i put it so everyone can see it. it will be there forever.

host: banks are weighing into the campaign. here are some comments on facebook -- you can share your opinion on facebook by looking for c-span. we have a poll on whether political spouses affect your votes. you can see the results of that. the majority of people are saying no. forest is up next from st. paul, minnesota, republican line. caller: hi, i just wanted to comment on the subject. i think the fact that mitt out there andis

with the disease she has, it's tremendous. she's going through pain and difficulty and doing her best. i don't think it should affect people's vote, but it shows her spirit. i know she is the main factor that he got back in this race. from what i have heard, she pushed him to get back into this race and told him it's time for him to run again and that she thinks he could fix america. i think he can fix america. host: banks for calling. let's go to jason in seattle, independent caller. -- thanks for calling. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment about

the guy who called for north carolina and said something about ann romney, how fake she looks. she has ms and breast cancer survivor. i think she showed a lot of poise and grace, like the lady said earlier. when you go through something like that and you have a companion like mitt romney to help his wife threw it, that's a pretty big deal. anybody that says -- they have not been her shoes -- in her shoes and they should not declare things they don't know about and they should have some empathy for the person and try

to understand instead of trying to jump to conclusions. host: have you seen enough of ann romney on the campaign trail and michelle obama? caller: i did the michelle obama, i think it was on a weekend, and it was really sad. she was basically begging people, we can do this, please, please. i'm like, did you not go to harvard? to graduate from harvard, i would imagine she could express yourself a little bit more fluently and co recently. host: jason wanted to give some clarity in his perspective on ann romney. we have been doing research about another call earlier, but

.here's no archive of that whe here's another comment on facebook -- let's go to our next phone call from los angeles, michelle, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i think the wives do lend to the pageantry of running for president. peoplee don't know these personally and we are always looking at their public statements to find out what they are really like and home.

ann romney gave a speech early on when mitt romney was running in the republican primaries. she was talking about he was on the road a lot. she developed ms. she said i have these seven boys and she said she was talking to him and telling him i don't think i can do this alone, this is really hard being here all alone. he told her, well, your job is way more important than mine and i know you can do it. i thought that was an interesting comment. i thought, does that mean he left her there along with those boys when she said she could barely get out a bet? to me, that indicated something i was thinking, that his instincts seem to fail him in moments when you really need someone to make a decision.

instincts tend to help him when he tends to make a critical decision, like when he went after bin laden or when he decided to save detroit. a couple comments --: romney has five sons and michelle obama actually went to harvard. our next caller now. caller: i just wanted to say that the spouses of the political candidates really don't affect my decision, simply because, like the last caller was saying, we don't really know their private lives. we get the public version. they are trying to help their husband win the presidency, so they will try to give the best

view of their husband. it often hard to know what the real president would look like. if you were the wife of the president to be, you would give the best, you would share the best stories to make it look like they're best character. but you never really know. i would listen to things such as the plans the president has, such as the things they are trying to do with the country. those things weigh more than how their spouses would be. host: thank you for your call. here's a comment on twitter -- taking a look at a couple other stories in the news. mitt romney gave a foreign- policy speech yesterday.

president obama designated the chavez home as a monument. he's with the widow of cesar chavez and the co-founder of united farm workers as they tour the memorial. designated a home of the labor leader as a national monument yesterday. republicans said it was a desperate attempt to shore up latino support. that's from the "washington times." but also right that romney is seeking to gain among early voters. the race is on to get early voters who are starting to go to the polls now. another headline from the wall street journal -- and here's a story looking at

financial news and how that affects campaign 2012 -- and gas prices, california gas prices are expected to relax. they have had high prices recently and the governor has called for an early winter blend fuel. starting today and every tuesday up to election day we will get electoral scoreboard updates from a variety of publications. today features the wall street journal electoral map. a political reporter is joining us from the wall street journal. colleen?

guest: first, we can see which states are swing states. we have at 8. a fairly small number of states up for grabs. within those states you can look at several measures. it's important to understanding the state's as we talk about the economy and the national economy and it's important to look at the economy within each of these dates so you can look at unemployment numbers and see how much a gallon of gas will cost in virginia and look at the history of each of these states to give you a sense of where they have been in the past and where they might be headed. so it gives you a good sense of which states are in play. you can even make your own map

and to the electoral map. host: the number you have is 251 electoral votes for president obama and 181 for romney appeared the states in play according to your research are the ones with the areas not color-coded. what data goes into making this analysis? guest: in terms of which states are in play, we looked at an average of polls, all the polls out there for these states and they come up with an average of those so you can see when you take all the data available what the polling numbers show. that is always a moving target. we are constantly getting new poll information, so we will see

the numbers continue to change as the election gets closer. but these are the states where the numbers are the tightest and could go either way it. host: take us through a couple of those states. guest: a lot of them are familiar states that have been a bellwether in past elections. florida and ohio are still among the most coveted states. they have many electoral votes and are still very close. florida looks to be about tied. you see that florida has 29 electoral votes. if you look at the the tolls with barack obama at 251, to hundred 70 of the magic number. -- 270 is the magic number. if he wins in florida, that would put him over the tops to win. so florida and ohio remain very coveted as well as virginia.

as our north carolina and colorado. those are the states where the numbers show the toughest fight at this point. host: what are you watching for as we head into the final weeks? guest: well, we will still be watching to see how the numbers moved, even on the heels of mitt romney's debate performance last week, there's a little like time with the polls. it takes a number of days and perhaps up to a couple weeks to see how an event would really move the polls. we could still see movement in the polls from his debate performance. we have not seen the effect of the new jobs numbers we've seen on friday with unemployment dropping below 8% for the first time in 43 months. the rates will continue to move with additional debates and additional data. so these numbers will continue moving. it's interesting to look at the numbers in the. individual the

if you look at florida, it has relatively high unemployment at 8.8%. it's higher than national average and they have higher foreclosure rates. so those are things that could affect the race within a particular state. host: colleen nelson, thank you so much. washington journal will continue our look at the electoral map every tuesday. coming up next, susan glasser, the editor of foreign policy, will join us to look at the romney foreign-policy speech and how foreign policy is impacting campaign 2012. coming up, the gang of eight and congress' effort to avoid the future fiscal cliff with lisa mascaro. first an update from c-span radio. >> 7 icloud 40 8:00 a.m. eastern. the turkish president in remarks yesterday, yesterday "the worst-

case scenarios are now playing out in syria and turkey would do everything necessary to protect itself as its army fired back for a sixth day after a shell from syria flew over the border." the last hour, nato says it is ready to defend their alliance member turkey in the. syrian the. we will keep you updated. the head of the european central bank is pushing for the creation of a common bank bailout fund to prevent bank failures from wrecking the financial system or costing taxpayers money. mario draghi says such a bank resolution fund is the way to avoid the kind of disruption that occurred after the failure of u.s. investment bank lehman brothers in 2008. turning to campaign 2012, danville, kentucky, is getting ready for a thrill. it's the vice-presidential debate this thursday between joe biden and paul ryan.

the city has repaved streets, planted flowers, and directed new signs. one bar is serving cocktails named for the vice president and his rival. c-span is covering the vice- presidential debate thursday night and are preview program begins a 7:00 p.m. eastern with the debate starting at 9:00. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> look at what president obama did on the budget. nothing except borrow and spend. as a result of his abdication of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion debt reduction plan over the next 10 years. we have already passed $1 trillion. ladies and gentlemen, these guys go against everything. not only they say they don't like our plan.

but what is your plant? >> on thursday paul ryan and joe biden will face off in their only debate. martha raddatz will be the moderator from centre college in danville, kentucky. you can watch and engage starting at 7:00 and then the debate at 9:00. and your reaction at 10:30. follow our live coverage on c- span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: susan glasser is editor ain chief at foreign-policy. guest: thanks for having me. host: did you hear anything new from mitt romney yesterday? guest: this was his third foreign policy speech, but people are paying a lot more attention now. it was an important moment for him. when he's trying to do, he's

not outlining how he would run the country or how he would protect america around the world continuing to's try to draw contrasts between him and obama. host: do you sense a romney doctrine or philosophy emerging? guest: romney has been something of a mystery when it comes to foreign policy until now. we are not entirely clear. it's not the subject matter he feels the most comfortable with. there's a debate inside his campaign when it comes to foreign-policy. tent in hisan big campaign. he has people in his campaign who worked for the bush administration and representatives of the group of

republicans who says pixar problems here and home -- fix our problems here at home, as well as liberal internationalists. you would have seen different factions in his speech yesterday. clearly, he's coming down more on the side of the second part of the bush administration, which is to say he is embracing the idea there's a role for american values and a freedom agenda in the world. he's trying to do so while avoiding promising to send american troops to new foreign military adventures. so it's a fine line. host: if you would like to join the conversation about foreign policy and campaign 2012, here are the numbers to call -- let's listen to mitt romney

yesterday outlining some of his foreign-policy ideas in virginia. [video clip] >> the president is fond of saying that the tide of war is receding. i want to believe him as much as anyone else. but when we look at the middle east today with iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in serious threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march, and with an american ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of all, the affiliate's, it's clear the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. i know the president hopes for a safer, fear, and more prosperous middle east aligned with us. i share that hope. but hope is not a strategy. we cannot support our friends and defeat our energy -- our enemies in the middle east when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being deeply cut off, when we have no trade agenda to speak

of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but of passivity. host: that was mitt romney yesterday. it garnered a headline in "usa today" -- how much of the speech was against president obama and what he's done and how much of it was laying on his own trajectory and agenda? guest: mostly in his role as a challenger, this is about a critique of the obama foreign- policy. that's a very common tactic by challengers. he talked about hope is not a strategy. he's trying to emphasize his critique of obama as leading from behind, which was from an unnamed administration official at the end of a 8000 word new yorker magazine piece last year. it has become a staple of republican critics of the president's foreign-policy. there are some real differences between obama and romney when it

comes to foreign policy. those are substantive. romney has called a rush of the number one geopolitical foe of the u.s. promised to the surprise even of his own advisers. he has continued to emphasize that and to say that vladimir putin will get nothing from me. barack obama has emphasized as one of his major foreign-policy accomplishments a reset with russia that has enabled us to get more done, whether it is sending supplies into afghanistan through the northern route, which has become a much more significant issue as there have been problems with pakistan that made it difficult for us to get in and out, or having a new nuclear arms limitation agreement with russia. so that's a substantive difference. there are others as well. when it comes to some of the core middle east issues, how to

stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon or what it is that mitt romney would do differently from obama when it comes to encouraging the growth of democracy in some post-arab spring countries, it's not clear. pretty hard to tell aside from rhetoric what he would do different. host: wilie joins us from illinois, democratic line. caller: how are you? yes, i definitely agree with the lady talking about the foreign policy issue. i think mitt romney is an opportunitist. he went overseas and is respected our allies. he kisses up to benjamin netanyahu on foreign-policy. i think obama is steadfast. he talked to benjamin netanyahu

on the phone for hours. it's not like he has been dodging him. he does not is up to foreign leaders. the talks to them like a leader. obama held his head up high and did not have his head down like everybody said he did. i don't think the real voters actually thought that. i think a lot of people just followed what the media was saying as far as what he was talking about -- i mean what the media was talking about when they said obama did not hold his head up high. i think he was very presidential and very calm. i think. mitt romney think. host: we will hear the candidates debate on policy in the coming weeks. can you reflect on the earlier part of what he was saying? guest: i think romney did make a

trip this summer to europe and israel. he went to london where he famously criticized the preparations for the london olympics games. he went to poland. he went to israel. democrats have tried to emphasize what they see as romney's pension for gaffes. he's not comfortable with the subject of foreign policy and has seemed undiplomatic in foreign affairs initially. you see a somewhat inconsistent critique when it comes due romney and what the democrats are saying about him. they call him gaffe prone and flip-floping. on the other hand, they say there's no real difference between him and obama on major issues that count. yet they suggest he's going to be the second coming of the first bush administration. i think you have almost every

possible critique being made on mitt romney right now when it comes to foreign policy, in part because his views are still somewhat unknown and it's not clear what kind of foreign- policy president he would be. host: host: let's listen to how this coming into play of the campaign trail. [video clip] >> i am barack obama, and i approved this message. >> reckless, amateur, that is what mitt romney's trip was called. his knee jerk response showed an extraordinary lack of presidential character. republican experts said mitt romney's remarks were the worst possible reaction to what happened. if this is how he handles the world now, think about what he might do as president.

host: susan glasser, a people paying attention to the -- are people paying attention to the foreign policy of these candidates? guest: some of this can be taken with a grain of salt. before the convention, 4% of americans said foreign policy would be the top issue. in the last few weeks, the number has gone up slightly, as a result of the tragic attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, where we are in afghanistan, and exactly what our position is in the new middle east after the arab spring. this is not necessarily going to be the decisive issue. it is important to remember that. host: california. republican line. caller: good morning.

i have a couple of questions. when you just mentioned romney speaking about the ambassador in libya, how come nobody is asking that -- talking about how they asked for security but? -- security? nobody is held responsible. you know who made the decisions not to send the troops. anyone working for our government needs to have protection, and that is an abject failure and that should be a big thing in this election. a chocolates look at mitt romney's comments yesterday in virginia -- host: let's look at

mitt romney put the comments just in virginia. [video clip] >> the attacks on america should not be seen as random act. they are a larger struggle that is played out over the middle east, a region that is in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. the fault lines of this struggle can be seen in benghazi. the attack on our consulate on september 11, 2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that affect our homeland on september 11, 2001. the latest result can not be blamed on a reprehensible video, despite the administration's attempts to convince us of that. the administration has finally conceded these attacks were the deliver work of terrorists they use violence to impose their ideology on others and who seek

to wage perpetual war on the west. guest: it is interesting. on the one hand, mitt romney was criticized for his initial response to the tragic killings, jumping into a partisan critique of obama in the midst of the event. then he backed off. yesterday, he was critical, but not using the same tone and he did the project anything he would do differently with regards to what is an unstable situation in libya today. i think the caller reflects an important point of view that is out there and both obama and romney need to address, which is national security is really what americans care about. they might be less concerned about the rating of a new constitution in tunisia, although that is important in

the new middle east, but they are concerned if the instability gives rise to new states that allow al-qaida and philips to flourish. that is what has happened in parts of libya. they do not have central government control over all of the territory, and that is part of why you saw this terrible tragedy. on the specifics, there is an investigation under way by the fbi and the state department has launched what it calls an official accountability review board. we do not have the full picture of what actually happened, but there is no question that this is a major tragedy. it is the first time in more than two decades that the u.s. has lost an investor in a situation like this. host: susan glasser is editor in

chief at "foreign policy magazine. indiana. chris. independent line. caller: jobs are going to be the most important thing in the election, but foreign policy will be important. as far as governor romney not pointing of the specificity of what he would do differently, i disagree. in his speech he pointed out a lot of things that he would do differently. he strongly backs israel. more money for the military. opposing various things. it was a best contrast to the president. -- vest contrast to the president. as far as foreign policy concerns respecting the election, you know, the

president's policies have not seemed to have worked in the middle east. they have gotten worse over there, to me, and i am independent, so i am not thinking his strong point is foreign policy, which some people do think because of the killing of osama bin laden, and in my opinion any sitting president would have taken that action. i am glad president obama did, and he deserves credit, but no matter who would have been president they would have done that. guest: there is a significant difference on military spending between obama ann romney and one that obama did point out yesterday -- and romney, and when the obama -- one that was pointed out yesterday. obama said it would be catastrophic.

it is important to note that we are not actually talking about cuts to existing budgets and the scale of military spending is so vast that when he talks about the obama cuts he is talking about going back to the 2006 levels of spending when i do not think many people thought there was a dangerously low level of spending. the u.s. military currently spends something more than 40% of the entire world military spending. host: "the washington post" looks at foreign -- foreign- policy and defense spending. they also looked at a kaiser health tracking poll from last month, thinking ahead to the elections, how important military spending will be.

30% said extremely important. 37% said very important. 21%, somewhat important, 11%, less important. it's as president obama announced plans for a leaner military. the new military strategy also emphasizes widening the u.s. security presence in asia pacific region. mitt romney said he would increase active duty personnel by 100,000 troops, reinvesting weapons systems, and has pledged to step up the navy's shipbuilding rate.

take onmitt romney's middle eastern policy from president obama. [video clip] >> america has a strong history of strong, principled, global leadership. this has been written by pickets from both party. this is america at its best, and the measure by which we measure every president. unfortunately, this president's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership, and nowhere is this more evident than in the middle east. i want to be clear. the blame for the murder of our people in libya and the attacks on our embassy and other countries lies solely with those that brought them about, and no one else, but it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the president to shape history, not to read from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.

that is unfortunately where we find ourselves in the middle east under president obama. host: that was mitt romney in virginia, outlining his foreign policy strategy. susan glasser, realistically, what can mitt romney do differently? guest: if you listen to his speech, take it at face value, he is suggesting a much more muscular, assertive military with the idea that he will get out there and tell people what to do. my question is what happens when they say now? that is when you would get to understand what kind of tactician mitt romney is. what will he do when his effort to swagger and bring the american big stick does not necessarily produce the results

that he wants? obama has had to dramatically, as did george w. bush and bill clinton before him. campaigns are about one vision of the world that is critical of their opponent, whether it is the incumbent or the previous president. for example, george w. bush on russia said bill clinton was wrong, he personalize our relationship, invested too much in boris yeltsin, and that is a disaster. i will be a realist, thinking about america's national interest, and what did he do? he got into office, met with vladimir putin, looked into his eyes, and famously saw his soul, so people pivot. barack obama said he would negotiate with our enemies and

our friends, and outlined a new policy of engagement to iran and north korea. those things did not happen. reality did not permit it. the record is running on would have astonished many supporters of barack obama in 2008. host: susan glasser is the editor in chief of "foreign policy magazine." here's a question from tony on twitter. the obama reset with russia, bush looking into platooned's soul neither worked well. this is a part of the region that you know well. guest: we pay a lot of attention to russia. we were there during vladimir putin's first term in office, so

we have seen the shaping of what has become today's russia. what is interesting is that presidents come in and they often talk about reinventing russian policy, but there is the consistency in that russian and u.s. national interests tend to dominate. vladimir putin criticized secretary of state hillary clinton, that she was interfering with the election, the americans were trying to overthrow him, so there has been a chilling of the relationship compared with the friendly relationship president obama had with dmitry medvedev. that being said, it is hard to imagine a major shift. clearly, the russians have listened to mitt romney's rhetoric about them in the

number one geopolitical foe, and a chill would be in sight, but it is in their interest, for example, to continue to cooperate with the united states when it comes to allowing the number distribution network to deliver supplies into afghanistan. it is not because they like the united states, but it is because afghanistan is it terrible problem practically at the borders of russia. it is a major source of drugs that flow through central asia and into russia. that heroin is a play doesn't central -- is a plague on central asia and russia. host: kathleen, indiana, and democrats line. good morning. caller: the morning. my head is spinning. i saw romney's speech

yesterday, and i just do not understand, between the debate and this speech yesterday, that people do not understand what a phony, liar, opportunist he is. i have a nephew that is a marine. he did a tory in iraq. god bless him, he fought for our country. romney and ryan, first off, let's get something clear here once and for all, as far as the sequestered cuts go, it is not obama's thing, okay? it was congress and paul ryan's thing because they were too immature to act like grown-ups and make a deal, ok? obama had nothing to do with it.

it was paul ryan and congress. guest: i do think that the one of the issues that one of the -- that people will be basing their vote on is the question of leadership at large and that is why you heard a lot about leadership from mitt romney and what kind of role obama is projecting and by extension what he is doing at home in guiding in shaping how we use natural resources. although the polls might not registered significance to a particular foreign policy issue, when it comes to the broader question of leadership, that is part of what people will be casting their vote on. there is an opportunity, as the mitt romney team has identified, to suggest criticism of president obama as a leader. host: president obama was at a fund-raiser in california last night. [video clip]

governor romney has a different view. he said it was tragic to end the war in iraq, and doubled down on that today. he said it was a mistake and i disagree. bringing our troops home was the right thing to do. [applause] every brave americans who wears the uniform of this country should know that as long as i am commander-in-chief, we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known, and when our troops to takeoff their uniform, we will serve them as well as they have served us, because nobody who have fought for us to death to fight for a job or a roof over their head when they come home -- for us should have to fight for a job or a roof over their head when they come home. guest: his analysis of romney's speech is not quite fair. mitt romney was criticizing obama for not being able to come

to an agreement with the iraqi government on a continuing u.s. military arrangement. he was not saying let's keep fighting in iraq indefinitely. that being said, it clearly is a strong point for obama that he has managed to pull troops out of iraq, announced the withdrawal timeline for afghanistan. that is broadly supported by americans across the political spectrum, and that is why mitt romney is engaging in a delicate tightrope walk that i referred to. he wants to critique obama for not having a muscular enough view of american power without going into suggesting that he will use this gold-plated military that we are talking about in all sorts of different situations. mitt romney has not talked about afghanistan much because the

bottom line is that even within his own party americans are pretty sick of a decade of war and support of of the policies obama has pursued to to me to those conflicts. host: from twitter -- governor romney, i'd temper my remarks on the u.s. strong principal global leadership. you will not find universal agreement. larry. georgia. democrats find. -- democrats line. caller: first, mitt romney is the most war-mongering mormon that i ever met. i do not know what he wants to spend so much money on the military. i was in the military. i'm retired. we do not need that much money going into the military. we wasted and used more money

than you could imagine. trust me. secondly, i do not think these skirmishes over in the middle east area and in africa have anything to do with the american people as far as us knowing what is going on. too much information and false information is what starts the 9/11 was a hoax thing. the republican party needs to pipe down because they make us look like idiots on a global scale. guest: that is an interesting perspective for someone that surge in the military. one issue the democrats have used to some effect is that romney's proposed increases in defense spending are not been -- supported by the military. he is in some cases asking for

spending the military has not asked for. the defense budget is the only part of the budget that comes off of capitol hill with more money in it than the rest of the budget. but there -- there is also -- there is often seen an advantage in boosting military spending. host: from twitter, president obama does not seem to realize the the military strongly supporting mitt romney. the military is out of touch -- obama is out of touch. guest: my guess is president obama is well aware. caller: the morning. i want to say that i really do not like this -- good morning. i want to say that i really do not like this nomination -- domination.

when we are defending israel, we are defending designed people. i do not think that is a part of the religion. the christian part of obama's history, they made him to announce that. i know that that is what he believes in. i converted to islam because it is more protective of the traditional roles of the father and mother at home. i think that is a positive situation for democracy, taking with enough of welfare, and we do not have the game in prison situation that we would have here. israel, i do not think we should follow their lead because i think the world looks at how americans get along with each other, not at how israel gets along with america, and their

approach in religion is an eye for eni, not following the christian an -- an ey, and note following christian beliefs. we need to make our own decisions, even though israel says their point to follow their own test. i think they believe they are defined people, and i think that is a religious falsehood. americans do not have to follow the abraham was for all people. he never said the jewish people were better than any other race on the earth. guest: there is a lot that comes into play when it comes to the middle east, and the question of u.s. support for israel has been criticized as part of this campaign, but there is a broad political consensus across the

two parties in the united states when it comes to supporting israel, and in particular a determination to come up with a unified approach to the challenge of stopping iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. why are we united in that? and the iranians have said they wished to white israel from the -- white israel from the face of the map, and that is the next potential threat, threatening the very existence of the jewish state in the middle east. the bottom line is that it is a tough neighborhood that they live in, but this is a threat that is far greater than anything they have faced before. you will not see any significant difference between leading democrats and republicans when it comes to that, and of course there is a conservative leader

in israel right now. he grew up in the united states. he said he was born speaking republican. clearly, he is much closer politically to the republicans in the united states and mitt romney has vowed to let there be no bail out the -- daylight between the position of the united states and israel, the thickly when it comes to the strike on iranian facilities. where you have a difference his tactics, the most effective way of a military strike. what if it leads to a broader war? what if it leads only to putting off the iranian nuclear program by one year or two? what did you accomplish? those are the factors that are being debated and very vigorously behind closed doors when it comes to threats, but in a broad sense, the democrats and

republicans will not shift away from that special relationship between israel and the united states. host: the op-ed features of the papers are looking at the mitt romney speech, with "the washington post" saying, "of foreign policy pepco." -- foreign policy echo." one of our viewers on twitter says there is not much difference. do you see much daylight between the two? guest: certainly, a more muscular rhetoric has been the theme of romney, campaigning on the notion of american priebus, and accusing president obama of not being a believer of exceptionalim and a special destiny of america in world

history. to many that seems to be a silly exercise of political chest- beating. in reality there could be real differences, but i do not think this campaign or yesterday's speech has fleshed out what they will do. host: robert, new london, connecticut. good morning. caller: i started foreign policy for a long time -- studied for a policy for a long time, and what i see on television are attack ads, misinformation. i served in the military. i went in in 1982. i was in new haven, connecticut, with my good friend stanley teller, who runs a website called the struggle and is well- known. i was down there celebrating --

not celebrating, but making people aware of the massacre that happened in beirut in 1982 when soldiers went up and murdered 7000 people, cutting their ears off, stealing their jewelry, palestinian refugees. i do not want to hear anything about this. this is making me feel unsafe. when you interview it is neo- conservatives. i never get the perspective of loving people. host: susan glasser is the editor of "foreign policy," not a neo-con, but he says he wants to see a message of peace. are we hearing that? guest: american election years

tend to be testosterone-filled when it comes to what the image that we want to project in the world is. think about the obama of 2008. would you have been surprised? i certainly was to say that he is running on a campaign where he talks about a kill list. we have assassinated american citizens inside yemen, the al- qaida-affiliated court. we wage to eight targeted and legal drone war in the -- waged a targeted and lethal drug war. -- drone war. he is not exactly a pacifist. friday, we'll have the annual

awarding of the nobel peace prize. remember when barack obama received the peace prize and gave a surprising speech when he talked about the reasons for war. it suggests that broadly speaking the americans are a militaristic people, and those are the kinds of words you're hearing even more so from mitt romney. host: susan glasser, editor in chief of "foreign policy." tell us about this cover. guest: there is a lot of talk in the campaign about the economy, and a lot of talks about the losses the last several years, the economic crisis and now we're looking to the crisis in europe and the softening of

economies in china and india. we thought we should take a step back and say there has to be winners in every process of the people. call it creative destruction, if you will, there are always those that find ways to take advantage of new opportunities when forced to buy reality. we have assembled an interesting list of actual winners. you hear a lot about the losers. who has been a big winner? hollywood has turned out to be a big winner. they have gone global in a big way. their revenues are hugely over a time while sales in north america are flat or declining, they have gone global, making inroads markets like india, which was very resistant. what is another example of a

winner? mcdonald's, the quintessential american brand. their stock is up something like 500% over the last decade. why? again, globalization. they figured out you do not have to sell american-style cheese burgers and soda to kids in india or indonesia to make millions, and a customized and have gone up local with food that appeals to local consumers. mcdonald's here might be the target of our obesity campaigns, the obsession with american yuppies, but globally it still means the middle class good life. who else profits in tough economic times? make-up companies. there are -- there is documented research to support this. the sales of the companies is astonishing. then, of course, there are

political extremists, which, unfortunately, flourish in tough times. look at the rise of far right and far left parties. it is not just greece. it is here in the united states as well. host: susan glasser, thank you so much. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up next, we talk about the gang of eight with lisa mascaro with "l.a. times," and solutions to the fiscal cliff. later, bruce morrison from the bipartisan policy center, but first, it is the 15th anniversary of c-span radio. here to talk us about that is nancy calo. why was it created, and what is at its mission? >> it was created on october 9,

1987, -- 1997, another way to affect coverage. we bring you live coverage of house and senate proceedings. we will have live coverage of debates on the fiscal cliff. also, we bring you public policy events including congressional hearings, and there is a hearing tomorrow by the house oversight and government reform committee looking into the attack on the consulate in benghazi, libya. all of our events, like c-span, her long-form, devil-to-devil, without interruption or -- gavel-to-gavel, without interruption or commentary. host: has the mission of c-span radio grown in 15 years? guest: it has changed as technology has changed.

when we first went on the air in 1997, suspend a radio was available on 90.1 fm here in washington, d.c., and shortly thereafter we became available on satellite radio. as the years went on, smartphones were invented, and those apps were invented. we are now available on the android phone, the iphone, and blackberry as well. host: nancy calo, c-span radio, thank you. we will be right back. >> this government has promised and maintained the closest surveillance of the military buildup from the soviets on the island of cuba. within the last week

unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. the purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere. >> do you, ambassador, denied that the u.s.s.r. has faced and is facing is committed missiles in europe -- in cuba? yes or no care do not wait for the translation. >> historians, scholars and journalists on the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. washington -- "washington journal" continues.

host: lisa mascaro, from "l.a. times," thank you for coming in. covering congress, even though they're not around washington, there are efforts to try to deal with the fiscal cliff. remind us what the fiscal cliff is. guest: it is this big year-end, point, where a number of provisions need to be dealt with. it is a massive combination of taxes and spending. we have the george w. bush era tax cuts that were extended two years ago and now expire at the end of the year. these are tax cuts that lower tax rates,hat impact americans all across the income scale. you have tax breaks on higher income, lower income that would shift if congress fails to act.

there are middle-class tax breaks that are part of that. congress does not do anything, almost everyone's taxes would go off. there is a sizeable package of spending cuts to the federal government, 100 billion for the next fiscal year that would hit several departments evenly across the pentagon and domestic agencies. these spending cuts were the product of white listeners would remember as the debt ceiling negotiations -- of what listeners would remember as the debt ceiling debate where leaders could not get the debt load under control and they essentially said all right, since we fail to come up with a plan to a month next year we will automatically trigger these -- to come up with a plan,

next year we will automatically trigger the spending cuts. many people do not want this, so congress has a big job on their plate after the november election, trying to figure out how to come to a compromise in the political sphere that would make a deal that has a better outcome. host: lisa mascaro, this gain of eight has assembled. who are they, and what are they doing? guest: is a history lesson, but it is essentially four democratic and four republican senators. it started as the gang of six. this was a group that was frustrated two years ago when the bipartisan national fiscal commission, the commission that congress established and president obama signed into law to deal with the nation's rising debt load -- the fiscal commission not, came up with a

plan, and it essentially went nowhere because they did not get enough votes from the panel to spark the next stage with these legislative actions. so, a group of six senators started meeting privately, sometimes in secret, to try to see if there was something big to do with this framework. these are very big political and policy decisions. they are very complex. they take a lot of political will at a time when congress does not seem to have that kind of will. these six, perhaps they could come up with something. they have been meeting for two years. they added two members. we could go through the list. the republican side -- senator sexy chambliss, senator mike crapo, -- senator chambliss,

senator mike crapo, tom coburn of oklahoma, and and and the democratic side is mark warner, kent conrad, durbin of illinois, who is the number two democrat, and a since added to the list, senator michael bennett from colorado, who is a newer, younger member who is part of the generation that does not understand why congress works so slowly. on the republican side they added another newcomer to the senate, senator mike johans. they are meeting this week. it is different since congress is on recess, and congress has not been here since early-

august. lawmakers are home, campaigning in their states or for their colleagues tried to get majorities shored up in both the house and senate. so, a group is coming into town tomorrow for a meeting off- campus at mount vernon, which is a good place for them to meet if they want to avoid reporters who tend to stop the halls and wait out the meetings to get any little snippets of news. host: from politico this week,

how secret is there work? i mean, how much do we know about what they talk about, when they are meeting, and what they're doing? guest: i would say the problems the country and this congress face are known. you could easily look back over many reports and the public and private meetings to understand that most outside observers believe that the nation's debt load is not sustainable. it is at a rate that is larger than it has banned for a number of reasons, and it is not something the country can handle. there have been a lot of outside groups, budget hawks across washington who have offered ideas and solutions. what the game of 8 is trying to -- gang of 8 is trying to come

up with is not a secret, a package of $3 trillion in deficit reductions, which is some combination of tax revenue and spending cuts. therein lies the problem. we have a situation where democrats have been loath to to target the deep spending cuts to domestic programs an impediment programs that would be needed to cut a deal, -- entitlement programs that would be needed to cut a deal, and republicans are loath to consider the idea of any sort of new tax revenue that could be added to the picture. so, how do you put this deal together in no way that makes a policy sense, but also would satisfy the political differences on either side?

it really is difficult. if you look to the projections, people say if we do not do anything, this would be great for the nation put the deficit, because tax revenues would automatically go up, spending would go down, and our national deficit would nearly be cut in half. that is a great outcome. yes, it is, but the other hand, the economy, which is in a fragile state, would decline, and we've seen projections of a 0.5% reduction in gdp growth which experts say would put the economy in a recession. the point is these are difficult decisions, they're very open, out there, and to answer your question more directly, the game of six needs on a regular basis, but we need to check in and find out when and where. host: lisa mascaro, congressional reporter with "the

los angeles times." barbara. hello. caller: thank you for c-span. my question is how will the republicans be able to negotiate on taxes when they signed the pledge from grover norquist, and have a gun to their head from karl rove for reelection. guest: thank you for your question. this is always a topic here in washington to answer the second half of the question, there is not a sense that anything will happen until after the election in what is called a lame duck session of congress. the idea is the political situation is so volatile and we do not know what the makeup of the house and senate will be. even then, in a lame duck

session, it is a short window of time to really hammer out a deal, and that is part of what the game is working on, come up with a framework date could present when lawmakers return. there is also -- that they could present when the lawmakers return. there is also the thought that they might have to do it temporary measure or let anything happen and then come back in january. so, a couple of different tracks. to more directly answer your question, you mentioned grover norquist and americans for tax reform, a longstanding group promotes fiscal conservative and lower government spending. grover norquist and his group have been successful in having nearly every republican in congress sign-on to a pledge to the american people that says they will not increase taxes.

so, to address the revenue side of the equation, getting tax revenue, as perhaps spread the president obama has suggested, by asking -- as, perhaps, president obama has suggested, by asking wealthier americans to pay a little more. one way to look around this issue is to go off of the fiscal cliff, and let everything expire at the end of the year, which would be a dramatic moment in washington, but this is a theory that is out there, and democrats talk about this, that come january you start to bring the tax cuts back, so at that point everybody's taxes have gone up, and you say which ones to we want to bring back? let's bring back the child credit, the one that avoids the marriage penalty, and then have

the broader debate on tax cuts for the wealthy. republicans did not like this idea because it pulls away their leverage, but it would provide an easy out for the concerns over the grover norquist pledging they have made. host: a comment from twitter who says keep the tax cuts for those under toyota $50,000, all others go up, and a middle-class tax rates could go up. chuck schumer, senator from new york state, will be talking about tax policy at the national press club. we will bring you that event live at 10:00 this morning. he talked about scrapping the reagan-style model used by simpson-bowles, saying we cannot afford to lower the top rate for the wealthy. let's go live to janet in the west virginia on our republican line. caller: i have three questions.

i could have 100 about the obama administration. ibm concerned about -- i am concerned about the taxes for transactions, getting money out of the bank, or whatever, and then the hospital fine. if you go to the hospital and you have to come back in within 30 days. say you have a heart attack, and they said new home, then they did send you home, then they thought -- send you home, then they find the hospitals. how will that work? i am also concerned about this oil thing. obama has turned down anything with the pipeline, and we have oil that is protecting us from buying overseas and giving them money.

also, taxes are supposed to be to help people in other countries. what about this country? guest: a couple of different questions to tackle. some i know about, some i do not know as much about. i do not know specifically about the u.n. tax, but foreign aid is always a topic that people grumble about, how much the nation is spending helping countries around the world, especially during this time in the u.s. economy when so many americans have been struggling. i will say foreign aid is a small percentage of the budget when you look at the broader all they said the government has. -- outlays that the government has. i think the number is about 1%. i know those that support foreign aid will say is a slice and it does do a certain amount of work the state department

believes is important in terms of helping friends and allies around the world. i'm sorry i do not know more about the specific tax. as part of the nation's new health care law that was passed in 2010, there is going to be provisions where health care providers will be taxed or fined if they are not meeting standards in patient care. that is part of the effort to bring down the cost of providing patient care by penalizing those providers that are not hitting standards. so, what the caller was talking about, that is something that will start. there are other new taxes as part of the health care law. upper income households will be paid, again, folks in the $250

,000 grange, -- range, on the next dollar they earn, they will face a slightly higher, but i think it is a 0.9% tax. there are new taxes. as far as the pipeline, that is something the obama administration will revisit after the election. they cut off the decision, and that is something president obama said they would look at that again. host: john in north carolina tweets in, extend the mall, or repeal the mall. we cannot continue to always tax the other guy. here's a question from twitter. we will lobbyist be present during this sequence -- secret meeting. guest: it is a very good

question can i do not know who is on tap today, but i do know that the gang has a lot of friends and allies and freelance members of the senate that come in and come out of meetings enjoying immense sum of these discussions. -- and joined in on some of these discussions. there have been meetings with stakeholders. i do not know if you would call them lobbyists, but business leaders, others that could provide input, and that is probably a good question to do some digging on, to see the role that lobbyists are playing because we know that tax lobbyists and lobbyists for different agencies and companies that are getting all sorts of bricks and reliance on government spending will have a lot to say.

host: democrats lined. for the. philip. go ahead. -- florida, philip. go ahead. caller: yesterday, president obama keeps talking about the cuts in the military, and now we will cut the military as part of the sequestration. congress cannot come together to make a deal, so i do not understand how they keep blaming the president, saying it is the president of the fall that we are not -- fault that we are not coming to an agreement when you can not give the congress to agree to anything. they are so partisan. if they will not come together at all. that is why congress's approval rating is 9% or 10%. if congress refuses to do anything. guest: there is some truth to that, but the other side is that it does take leadership, and we

saw the leadership that president lyndon johnson used in passing the great society legislation, civil rights, the big ticket items and a note earlier era. there is an argument about steady leadership that could pave the way. on the flip side, this is the most partisan, divided congress in 100 years, and that does not count for nothing. that plays a huge role. it also feeds into the frustration people have with congress -- why can they not get this deal done? we know it needs to happen. it is a growing problem. like so many things, policy- wise, it is difficult, if not impossible, and politically lawmakers tend to not want to do with it in until they're faced with all last possible moment to act because if they at

earlier, they will certainly be criticized -- why did you make the deal this way or that way? both sides will be criticized. as we saw last summer during the standoff over raising the nation's debt ceiling, it went down to the last possible minute because neither side was willing to stick their necks out and say they would do something. that might not be the profile in courage that people expect from their lawmaker, but it is the state of affairs, and he is right that defense cuts are part of that $100 billion that would be automatically cut next year from both sides of the federal ledger with cuts to the military and to domestic programs as part of that failed debt ceiling deal last week. host: lisa mascaro is a congressional reporter with "the los angeles times " and tribune

newspapers. she writes for a variety of papers that have her story. you might read it on your local paper which in your local paper. she has worked in washington for the last six years. we're talking about the building fiscal cliff and the gang of eight. nothing is expected to happen before the election. realistically, how much traction can leaders get in a lame duck congress? guest: it is a good point, and something that might get best add a lot of people look at congress and say why can they not get this -- might get missed, and a lot of people look to congress and say why can they not get this done? leadership plays a role. we talked about the role of the person in the white house.

both the leaders of the house and senate, nancy pelosi, senate majority leader harry reid, those people need to want to make a deal. as much as the game of six or eight might come up with a framework it is difficult for those individual senators or, even as a group, to move the rest of congress until the leaders give the green light. i think that will take weeks. that will not be an easy thing to happen, even if taken up with a framework. i think most people feel there will be an interim or initial measure.

i think we will push the issues into next year, with a new congress. " host: on twitter, lobbyists are always guest: those are both really good points. people look at the sequestered as the coming spending cuts as a hammer and is that really the way decisions should be made? i think most people would say they don't like the idea of automatic cuts. but that was the thing to bring all the parties to the table, to use that as leverage to get something more tailored. host: robert in columbia, maryland, independent.

caller: good morning. i wanted to run by an economic. i came up with last night. i have been studying financial news and the reagan era of the 1980's. the sequestration and the fiscal cliff been, i have come to believe it's a smokescreen. dylan ratigan used to use the phrase "kabuki theater." this whole fiscal cliff tax think is a sham, because since the 1980's, will the people have been able to find tax loopholes. the new york times had an article that was "these islands are not jus shelters for taxes."

30,000 people and 457 companies bank in the virgin islands. i don't think its taxes. it is the trans-pacific partnership. i really believe banks are holding onto their cash reserves because the trans-pacific partnership is going to be the biggest free trade agreement the world has ever seen. it's going to reshape business. it's going to reshape labor in such a huge way within the next year or two. host: let's get a response. guest: there is an overarching concern that the tax code has become extremely complex and that those on the upper end are able to hire accountants and experts who can help them pay their taxes or avoid taxes and that most folks sitting around a table using whatever outlet they

used to do their taxes, and maybe don't have the ability to work the tax code. that's one of the goals of both parties would say is something they would hope to accomplish with broader tax reform that simplifies the tax code and makes it a little more even. host: tennessee, republican line, john, where are you calling from? caller: right next to chattanooga. i have two points. it's about credibility and the press. people calling in saying they are former military and sky news says he was retired military. people, if they would say their

unit. i think a lot of people are actually just making up who they are to get some kind of credibility. a woman calling to say her nephew was in the military. i would like to know what was their rank. that would be more credible. second, i would like to see c- span talking about the credibility of the rest of the press. somebody, a woman they call mad cow, who turned off in a minute. they are so biased. they turn people off completely. the average person cannot watch that.

and it takes programs like this and makes them less credible. host: i'm sorry you feel that way. let's go to christopher in florida on the democratic line. caller: yes, i have a question. i was wondering if congress does not pass over the fiscal cliff, who gets in charge of the government? will the president in charge of the government since congress does not get the fiscal cliff? host: wh power does the president have to intervene if he does not like the way things are going? whether or not president obama wins reelection, he is still the president through the new year. who wins the presidential election tends to be influential. guest: absolutely. the government would continue

functioning, even if the country goes off the fiscal cliff and the issues are not resolved by december 31 when most of them will take effect. the government will continue functioning. to the broader point, yes, president obama would still be in office through the end of the year. whoever takes over the white house, if it is president obama staying in the white house or governor romney, it would change the dynamic. there's a thought that if governor romney wins, there would be some sort of some sortor temporary measure would be tried to keep everything into the new administration to let the new administration takes its hands on these issues. i'm not sure democrats would want to go along with that. but there's a school thought which says that. i would not be surprised if the white house is working on

strategies as we speak to try to come up with proposals they could offer during the lame-duck session. i don't know that. but it would seem to make sense that just as the gang of eight is working on the idea that there would be some ideas coming forward. the outcome of this outcome and atwho controls congress -- do republicans maintain their majority in the house? do senate democrats maintain their majority? in majority? how does that dynamic work? you can see which way the political winds would shift. host: what are the most likely components each side would have to give in order to lower our deficit? guest: great question. pretty easy. democrats are going to have to give on entitlements, meaning medicare, social security, and

the broader domestic side of spending, such as medicaid. we call these entitlements, but they are really the great society safety net program and the rest of the domestic spending, on everything from school lunches you name it, go up and down the list, all these different activities. on the republican side, it goes back to what an earlier caller spoke about on revenue. the republicans will likely need to give some sort of new revenue, some sort of adjustment of the tax code that produces new revenue. those are the main gives on either side. very hard to get these two sides to compromise on this. host: there's a story this week with this headline --

how much does he want to get accomplished before he leaves? guest: it goes back to the idea that as productive as the gang of eight may be, it does need leadership about them to take whatever products they have and turn it into a deal, even if they -- if they even get to a product. they need leaders from the white house and senators. senator conrad has been one of the greatest thinkers on the budget. he's been the chairman of the budget committee. he has devoted much of his professional time here in the

senate, especially in recent years, in trying to find a deal, in trying to bring about. like a number of folks this year, he's more moderate minded , declined to seek reelection. there's a lot of frustration among folks in congress. it's not the same congress they entered. he's been here 25 years or 30 years and entered the senate at a very different time. senator conrad, personally, would be very happy to have a deal that he could walk out of here with. i think the prospects of that are are-- low. host: port richey, florida, jeff, on our independent line. caller: how are you? on foreign policy, when our embassies are attacked, we should send an implosion bomb after we clear out all our

people, quickly. host: we are talking about the fiscal cliff. caller: i know. ll back -- abullbapu bunch of my friends and i have a think-tank and we have been writing to obama. it starts with single mothers, it provides a paycheck for them. $50 a day to the federal government, that goes to the deficit. the paycheck will be a little higher. the president has to do only one thing. a price freeze. we could be on a point of seeing our deficit within two years and the 23 million people out of work, most of them would be put back to work. host: what are you saying should be put on hold? caller: a martial law on price freeze for six months to see if

it will work. host: and it is a fiscal cliff and not a physical clift. -- cliff. guest: and some people have called it a slope. you could go off the cliff and it would not be devastating immediately. it would have great economic impact in the months to come. that's a theory that has been promoted by some democrats as they try to get into this situation of letting everything happened and then building back pieces they want. economists have said pretty clearly that the first half of the calendar year would see a contraction because of this fiscal restraint. and that would throw the country into recession. so that is a real possibility. again, reason for something to get done. host: would a president running

handle the fiscal cliff differently than president obama? guest: yes, it's been interesting. we have seen some outlines of romney's tax plan. there's a difference in his spending priorities. he wants to do an overall loring of the tax rate, which he says will not cause the government because it will be paid for by cleaning up the tax code and closing loopholes. -- overall lowering of the tax rate. there have been concerns of whether his proposal adds up. some believe there would be enough growth in the economy that the growth would pay for the tax-cut and that there would

be enough loopholes to close. others, including the non- partisan tax policy center, which is the go to tax group in pencil up.ys it does not president obama says those on the upper end of the pale little more. and on the military spending, that's another big difference. president obama has worked with secretary leon panetta to bring down defense spending over the next 10 years. governor romney has talked about reinstating that and keeping defense spending at a floor, that it would not fall below. 4% of. two big ticket items, defense spending and tax policy. they have very different views. in terms of leadership, we would have to see what kind of leadership governor romney would have in terms of working with

congress, working with a potentially divided congress we have now, in trying to broker a compromise,. which would,. host: this tweet -- lisa mascaro, one of our other viewers pointed out that if eight people are hard at work having meetings talking about the fiscal cliff, what are the other 520 something members doing? what are the other members contributed to this discussion? how are they preparing for all the big questions that will come up in the next months about the fiscal future? >> people running for reelection right now, so lot of people are fighting to save their seats and others are in a safer seats and will likely be reelected. but i think that is for better or worse and it's probably at the top of some of those lawmakers mines, will be able to come back to washington -- will

they be able to come back. some are working on plans in the house and senate. they are working on their own and are working in concert with other like minded lawmakers. there's a coalition try to stop the defense cuts. there's a senator who is trying to work on the tax code. on the house side, the chairman of the ways and means committee, he held a number of hearings on tax policy before congress left. he's thinking of doing an overhaul of the corporate tax code, at least, next year. so there are people years working on some stuff. i would also point to a number of senators, particularly, who

have signed onto letters of support, saying we want to deal. there was a similar movement in the house it earlier this summer where a very sizable number -- perhaps 100 -- members of the house signed a letter saying they wanted to come to some sort of compromise. those are all intentions. probably some people are working harder than others. but there is the sort of this other movement, however great or small it might be. host: lisa mascaro writes for the l.a. times, congressional reporter. thanks for coming. guest: banks for having me. morrison talk about the state of the u.s. housing market. first, it's the 50th anniversary of c-span radio. this tweet --

to tell us more about c-span radio is nancy calo. she has been there since the beginning. tellus about programming that people can hear on c-span radio. >> as you mentioned, washington journal every morning beginning at 7:30 a.m. eastern, three hours of interviews, news, and your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. then we cover a variety of events from capitol hill to public policy events taking place around the city. senator chuck schumer, new york democrat, will speak at the national press club today talking about the presidential election and tax reform. we will have that live on c-span radio. and we cover all the debates. the next debate is thursday night with the vice-presidential candidates. that begins at 7:00, our review. the programs will air on c-span television and c-span radio. we have a special programs every

day, washington today is our news and information and interview program. we invite you to listen and call and we catch up on the latest news, that's monday through friday. supreme court oral arguments on c-span radio. this week, an argument on affirmative-action, that takes place tomorrow. the court releases oral arguments once a week. you can hear this affirmative- action case on c-span radio at 4:00 on friday. saturday night, american history, followed by overnight programming of "book tv." and then we replay meet the press as well as some other talk shows from sunday. that is just some of what airs on c-span radio. host: it aris in washington --

airs in washington. where else can people listen if they don't live in washington? >> is available on a number of platforms. yuka listen to us on xm satellite radio, channel 119. and if you have a smartphone, you can find our apps. and you can dial in and listen to our station on the phone and online at c-span.org/org. in the d.c. area, on 90.1 fm. and we are on hd radio 1. when the house and senate are in session, you can hear the house live on hd 2 o and 2 on hd 3. host: thank you so much, nancy

calo paris it is the 15th anniversary of c-span radio. we will be right back. >> this month as the presidential candidates meet for debate, as the middle and high school students to send a message to the president as part of this year's student cam video documentary competition. students will answer the question -- what is the most important issue the president should consider in 2013? a chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. the competition is open to students from grades 6 through grade 12. for complete details and rules, online to studentcam.org. >> these and gives a great look into what happened in washington. you are always surprised at what comes back to you and changes your view. it's different than regular media, because it's very objective and it shows a lot of what is real and what's going on. i watch hearings on c-span and

when the house and senate vote on different bills, we watched from the office. and also when the supreme court has hearings, we want different decisions and opinions on c- span. >> erin what is on directv. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> washington journal continues, host: bruce morrison is with a bipartisan policy center as a member of its housing commission, a former member of congress. he represented. a district represented. thanks for coming to talk about housing with us. we have very low interest rates right now. who can take advantage of them? how easy is it for americans to buy alone to get roused? guest: it is very restrictive.

many people in ordinary years, not when the bubble was in full bloom -- boom -- there were excessive loans than. standard credit restrictions are much more restrictive now perhaps in overreaction to what occurred. host: many stories about families not being able to pay. who is getting hurt by this now? do you have to have a fair amount of money to qualify for a loan? guest: there are many people who have credit that is good credit and they still find themselves with difficulty taking advantage of those low interest rates. sometimes they have to pay more and sometimes they cannot get credit at all at. host: what's the key to the housing market recovery? guest: it is slowly coming back. it's much better than it was in

2009 when things just collapsed. housing prices are inching backup. while nobody likes to see housing prices go up, that indicates there is demand for housing. if there is demand, that means the housing environment is better. many more people are needing to rent housing than in the recent past. maybe we are getting to more normal balance between people for whom buying a home makes sense and those for whom it's not the right decision at this time. so that has put a lot more pressure on rents and rental prices. rents are going up. that's really a problem at lower incomes where people are competing with a new group of people who have more money to spend and rents going up means a real problem for very low-income people. host: we talk about assistance and breaks for home buyers, but what about renters? what kind of assistance is out there for them? guest: we do have a public

housing system and we have vouchers and other such assistance for individuals of low-income. only about a quarter of the people eligible for those programs actually are able to get the benefit. not because they don't qualify but because tre is just not enough money be appropriated to pay for it. host: here's a story in usa today this morning -- what does this mean for home buyers and sellers? guest: most of the places that are hitting their peak did not

really go out of control at the time that prices went out of control in certain markets. so there is a leveling out around the country. generally, except for the worst hit areas, the prices are coming back. that's good for homeowners. but those trying to purchase, the prices going up, coupled with much more difficult credit, means access to home ownership is not as robust as it once was. we on the housing commission are really concerned about a balance between opportunity to rent and opportunity to buy. we think people should able to buy if they can afford to. the worst mistake we made was luring people into a home ownership before they have the resources to pay for it or giving them a financing scheme that was not fair and would ultimately fail. host: how does someone know if they are ready to buy a home? guest: they need to have some amount aof money as a down

payment. there are low down payment options available through the government's fha program and through other bank programs. but some money down is a good measure that youave a margin to able to be a homeowner, because a homeowner takes. takes risked -- a homeowner takes on risk. non the roof leaks, there's landlord to call. you have to pay for it. a steady income as well, the ability to pay the mortgage. and, ideally, but not having to pay more than a third of your income in order to pay the mortgage. some people are paying more in rent than it would cause them to buy with the interest rates as low as they are. so it is an individual determination. one thing you should not have is a teaser rate where the rate is

really low to start and then goes up rapidly. those are not being done now for the most part, but in the midst of the bubble a lot of people got loans where there was low pavement for a couple years and then exploded and there were caught with an inability to pay. host: bruce morrison serves on the housing commission of the bipartisan policy center and was the chairman of the independent agency that regulates a dozen federal home loan banks from 1995 to 200 and he represented connecticut posted third district in the new haven area from 1983 to 1991. he served on the banking committee in congress and the judiciary committee. if you would like to speak with the congressman about housing, here are the numbers to call -- let's go to thomas joining us

from illinois on our independent line. caller: hello. we have public-housing, but in many rural areas we have some people that live there and they're driving a brand-new $30,000 vehicles using public housing. that needs to be fixed. host: are you a homeowner? caller: yes. i have never granted in my life -- never rented. host: have you been hit by the mortgage crisis? caller: i don't think in has changed very much in the last seven years. guest: it obviously the case that any benefit program, public housing or anything else, any tax credit program, anything can

be abused by some people. most of the people who live in public housing or get public housing assistance are very low income and needy people. when there's an example of abuse, it should be brought to the attention of public officials. and they should look officials. host: dorothy, palmdale, california, democrat line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i love c-span. what -- guest: 0 it hung up a little early. host: let's move to our last caller, anna. you are on the air with bruce morrison. caller: i believe president clinton got us into this whole mess in the economy. he allowed people who really

could not afford a house to lower the rates and asked the banks to comply. i think we should be very careful what we are doing now so we don't fall into the same situation. this whole economy got that way because of him, i think. guest: i think that the country made some serious mistakes in allowing housing opportunities to people in good faith but then extending credit where people could not pay. that certainly was not limited and may not primarily in the 1990's. it really happened in the early years of the 2000's to blame it on president clinton rather than president bush, i would rather not blame either of them, but we really did not control the rules under which people could borrow money. and a lot of lenders to invented the back and a lot of folks on

wall street's disadvantage. and a lot of people may pull its decisions, themselves. the combination of those bad judgment led us to the prices we are in. i agree with you that we should not let that happen again. but i think the blame could be shared more broadly. host: here are couple of headlines from recent publications -- are you hearing this on the campaign trail? guest: housing has almost never been something that gets talked about in campaigns. i'm not sure exactly why that's true. when i was running for congress i talk a lot about housing. i had been a services lawyer and had done a lot of work in the housing area and it was something i talked about. presidential campaigns tend to stay away from it. while it is a central feature of people's lives, it is very rarely the first item on the

news or first item on the agenda for president. the bipartisan policy center has a commission. to come in with something in january that would give people a reason to focus on housing needs. and the responses that are consistent with economic conditions the country is in. host: you mentioned a report you are putting out in january. what are the goals and what do you do, generally? guest: the bipartisan policy center attempt to put together groups of experts people with credibility across the spectrum politically to try to help congress and the administration to make decisions that they can get bipartisan support, because of the bipartisan nature of the group that has put it together. housing is the latest area in which the commission is working. our goal is to ask hard questions and give realistic

answers. we are focused on home ownership, but we are also focused on rental. we are very focused on the fact that a very high percentage of people really cannot afford the rents that exist in the marketplace. there's no quick solution to that, because these are incomes that will not go any time soon and these grants are driven partly by the market also by the cost of just producing rental housing, which is quite high compared to the ability of a substantial part of our population to pay. host: the bipartisan policy center has a web site. the housing commission has asked some experts what you would like to hear asked of the presidential candidate at the debates? a number of experts way in and talk about they would like to hear from the candidates. ithaca, new york, shannon, independent line. caller: good morning.

my sister recently balked on home. she's 34. i was turned down for a home loan. i am 30. it was very depressing for me to be turned down. i was happy for my sister. as far as the lady that called earlier, talking about bill clinton, my sister pipa and other job and got her home and that's a good thing. sometimes maybe it hurts the financial situation, but it motivates people. if you can motivate a person like that and to see how happy my sister is and working hard, don't you think that helps the economy? guest: there's no question home ownership has been a goal that has been important to americans, of growing importance over the last 50 or 60 years. there's no question home

ownership gives people a stake in their community and it is something people work hard to unseat. so i completely agree with you. the economy is helped by all housing development and all housing exchange, gold rental and ownership, so it is a critical part of our economy and one of the reasons our economy is not coming back as fast as we all wish is the housing sector has been very sluggish. on the other hand, you can overdo almost anything. if you overdo home ownership, meaning that you bring people into it before they can afford it and they fail -- and everybody has the risk of failure because something can happen in their lives and they could become unemployed -- but the basic structure is people will not be able to pay in the foreseeable future, that's a bad decision. and boris and lenders made those decisions -- borrowers and

lenders made those decisions too often. the commission is trying to address that problem. congress passed legislation to restrict certain kinds of mortgages that turn out to be unfair to the bar we -- the bar orrower. host: fresno, california, is a democrat. caller: i'm a little nervous, my first time. my question is about section 8. i don't know if i am talking to the right person in terms of being knowledgeable about that. i am disabled and i am on ssi. i lived in a building that is section 8, so i guess it. but for some reason my section 8 is not transferable if i want to

move. i am wondering why is it for disabled people, there section 8 is not transferable where other people, they can transfer? guest: i hope i am the right person. i think i know the answer. there are two kinds of section eight. for those who don't know the number, this is a form of rent subsidy that helped people for the rent when their income is too low to afford it on their own. there are two basic kinds. one of them is project-based, if we're is tied to the particular building. and the other is a freestanding voucher which you can take to a different building. you are in the project-based category. on the commission, we are working on making the section 8 program or its replacement more flexible so someone like you

could make it portable, because you would be eligible. if you were eligible, then you would get the assistance. one of the problems with the current program is that only about a quarter of eligible people are actually able to get the assistance. so you are fortunate that you have the assistance. if the program were available for all those people who qualified -- not for those that don't qualify -- then your ability to move from where you are to some merrill's would be enhanced. quite frankly, given that three out of four of the people like eligible arenot tel not getting assistance, you should be grateful that you are able to afford your rent. host: if i make illegal money dealing drugs, i go to prison. a countrywide ceo made tons of

illegal money. why is he free? guest: well, it's not my job to replace the prosecutors in the courts. a lot of people who seem to have done very bad things in this economic collapse have either gotten off scot-free or have been able to pay large amounts of money and not suffer imprisonment. i don't know there is a solution to that. certainly, one can feel that justice is not always equal and that being well-off and being able to pay a very substantial fine might get you off. i would not comment on his guilt or innocence or exactly what he should have paid, because i don't know all the details or the facts. but i can understand the feeling of people who have cost

people less money than countrywide's a cure did might feel it was unfair. host: does that change the tone or affect the people have as they deal with mortgage companies, as they think about buying a home, like the stories about the former ceo of countrywide's practices? where does that leave us a couple years later, now? guest: i think people are angry and upset about what has happened in the country. there are two parts to dealing with the past. one is to have our justice system deal with people who have done things wrong. but that does not help anybody for the future. so that is one of those things, we have a system of courts and prosecutors to deal with. we may be unhappy with what they do. that's a separate thing that people in office should consider. but it is critically important that we fix the fundamental

problems and that we make the housing market work. when housing -- on the housing commission we are not delving into who did what asking the question how do you have a system that does the job for the american people so people can have housing they can afford and have home ownership when they can afford it? that's the number-one priority. host: paul is a republican in sunrise, florida. caller: good morning. we jsut bought -- just bought the house six months ago as it was. we are seniors and we live on social security, on my c heck and we cannot afford a $900 repair on are broken garage. host: he is looking for a

program to help people who bought a home and then ran into problems? he discovered leaks and other things later that went wrong with it. guest: the downside of homeownership, which is if you take on risk -- when you are a rancher, a landlord has that responsibility -- being a homeowner means expenses could pop up that you are not ready for. sometimes, if you have equity, that is you did not borrow 100% of the price, you may be able to make a small equity loan to pay for that kind of repair. generally speaking, there are not programs. but in certain states there are programs for seniors or disabled people. you should contact social service providers in your

community. you may find that there's a loan program or some assistance available. host: former congressman bruce morrison is a member of the housing commission of a bipartisan policy center. among his past jobs, he was the chairman of the federal housing finance board. in addition to his work at the bipartisan policy center, he's chairman and founder of the morris and public affairs group, which works on advocacy and lobbying issues. he has expertise in areas including housing, housing finance, and economic development. the bipartisan policy center created this graphic look at the allied cycle of a home. it says --

it's a fair number of states. explain the phenomenon a little more to us. guest: there are parts of our country that are growing much faster than others. that's why the state's fall where they do. host: you can see strong growth in the states that are shaded in rest. -- red. guest: there's been a big shift as people have learned about

the good weather in other parts of the country. people are learning in this crisis, entrepreneur as are learning how to take single- family houses and turn them into rental properties. that will make every use of some of that stock more available. sometimes it is an economic mismatch. people who worked all their lives and work themselves up to a very nice house and perhaps a bigger house than someone could afford was just coming into the market, so there are always mismatches, but that means housing will be cheaper in those areas. that will attract some people back. so i don't think people have overmanage our economy. we have a very resilience economy, very resilience population. and americans know how to follow a bargain. if housing prices fall in a particular area, the employers in that area will be able to recruit employees better. i think that will work out.

i don't think we need the government to settle in that. we need the government to provide solid economic footing for the economy as a whole. host: we are in connecticut on the independent line. caller: i know people in the mortgage industry. i've been involved with it a couple decades. i live in fairfield county, which is considered the gold coast. you have empty mansions all over the place, richfield, ridgefield county. i blame the democratic party for this mess. jimmy carter plant -- passed the community reinvestment act, which forced banks to make risky loans that people cannot afford to. buy to people that cannot afford homes.

people buying half a million dollar homes with no income verification. this is a typical case of government social engineering. everything the government sticks its nose into, they make up a disaster of. everything the government sticks its nose into, makes a mess of. host: let's go to our guest. guest: i don't think i would have gotten this gentleman's vote, since i am a democrat. naugatuck was close to my district. the only building a luxury housing and the fact that people cannot afford what they were buying, a result of the government programs.

the government programs focused on affordability and lower income people. whatever the excesses of that activity, really does not explain the phenomenon that you just described. what describes it is a financial system and real-estate the tradition in which prices went up and up and up in an unrealistic way and the banks making decisions about landing for gadabout basic disciplines it. it was not the government to suggested loans be made without documentation. most of those loans were not in government programs at all. they were in separate private programs that were run between mortgage brokers and wall street. no question about the mistakes and no question that the government did not stop it from happening. but st. that jimmy carter or bill clinton or any of the other presidents really created this is not right. -- saying that is not right.

agreed created this -- greed created this. host: keith is calling us from fargo, north dakota on the democratic line. caller: i am on social security disability. i have phobias and i'm scared to live on my own. when my mother signed me up for housing, it took me two years to get on housing. i moved to minnesota and when i came back they did not even know i was living in minnesota and they still had me on a house in ing lilst. -- list. i know a person from bosnia. she came over here when bill

clinton was president. they brought a bunch of bosnian people over here because of the war that was going on over there. we always complain about the people on disability and people on welfare. and you bring foreigners over here and put them on housing right away and food stamps. my mother and i were in a walmart store -- host: he brought up a couple issues. perhaps you can weigh in on comments he made about being on a waiting list for a long time looking for housing and his concerns about people who have immigrated to the country being able to take advantage of those. those guest: i have been the chairman of the immigration subcommittee in congress as well. waiting lists are very long for

assistance with housing for rental housing. the commission is focused on that and looking for something that will address that problem. unfortunately, it costs money and the country, as far as the government's budget, is not in very good shape for doing this. so how we get from here to there will be a problem. there's no question there are long waiting lists. that can be a real burden for people being able to afford adequate housing. but the bosnians who were brought here were not brought here especially by bill clinton or specially by george bush. there were brought here as part of an annual refugee programs. we only bring about 70,000 or so of those individuals every year. they are people who go through a very serious screening. they are really at risk of life and limb where they are. it's part of america's great tradition that we open our country to those people who are in that kind of extreme

condition. yes, when they come we do provide public assistance. but the programs are geared towards those people become financially independent. in addition to getting housing assistance up front, they also get job training and they move toward self-sufficiency. in a country of over 300 million people, we can afford to take a few tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the world and show them that america is still a compassionate nation for people all over the world who are facing not just housing deprivation but death and persecution. we should not blame those people for the generosity of america. host: a story in the l.a. times --

is this a possibility and how significant is this? guest: it could be quite significant to an individual. there are exceptions in the underlying law, but congress will exemptive everybody in these times when there's a lot of situations in which people are foreclosed or they get a short sale. therefore, they have gotten a bargain or they have gotten money in a sense their obligation was reduced. i think congress will look at that as separate from all the fiscal cliff issues at some

point or other, whether it is resolved immediately in the lame-duck session or in january, i think there's a general view that this is really hitting people while they are down and they really cannot afford these cuts. it's not like they've got money but in their pocket. avalon they cannot pay and the amount of the debt reduced becomes income. while it's technically correct, it's not a practical thing and this drives people into bankruptcy. host: 40, florida, republican aller, chris -- fort richie. caller: greed. everybody thinks when they take out alone that the bank owns alone and that they will pay their money to this bank and so

on and so forth. that's not what happens. the bank is only acting as a servicer of the loan. it never had the money to begin with. it is acting as a middleman. it is an entity that collects payments from the people, keeps track of the loan, and forwards the payments on to who owns the loan, which could be any number of hundreds of people through mortgage-backed securitized investors who bought the mortgage-backed security mortgages that were turned into stock certificates, basically. what they did was throw the whole mortgage backed securitized mortgage derivative thing, they took these loans and separated the mortgage note from the deed of trust. they violated state property law in every state. those two documents must remain together. that was violated.

the banks that began the process took those notes and sold them. host: let's get a response. guest: you know lot about what has gone on and how the system works. i would say that there was a lot of abuse. there's been a $25 billion settlement for some of that abuse. it does not cover everything or everybody. by a combination of the justice department and the state's attorneys general, there was a big lawsuit and a settlement with all the big servicers. there were supposed to make right at in money and in terms of modifications to try to go back and fix some of that. but you are right about the abuse. the one thing we should say is that the process of finding mortgages through the capital markets, through selling mortgage-backed securities, is not a bad thing in and of itself. it has made the interest rates lower and mortgages more

available than before we had that system. like every other system, you don't run according to the bulls, people will be hurt. .-- according to the rules and the excess is meant people got hurt. but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. securitization brings home ownership at lower costs to more people, but it has to be in accordance with the rules. host: npr has an interactive map on the rampage that shows where the foreclosure rates have been the highest in the country. which people are struggling to most of the country now? guest: people talk about the sand states, states where there's a lot of desert and other things. arizona, nevada, california, although it does not think the government of nevada, but there are not many houses